
View 8734 Cases Against Provident Fund
View 8734 Cases Against Provident Fund
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner filed a consumer case on 29 Mar 2023 against Gurunath in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/1314/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 02 May 2023.
Date of Filing:17.09.2019
Date of Disposal: 29.03.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:29.03.2023
PRESENT
APPEAL Nos.1304/2019 to 1325/2019
& 1327/2019 to 1338/2019
The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner .
(Pension), Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
New Block No.10,
Behind Income Tax Office,
Navanagar, Hubli-580025 Appellant
(By Mrs B.V.Vidyulatha, Advocate)
(Appellant is same in all the Appeals)
-Versus-
1. Appeal No.1304/2019
Mr. Shivaji
S/o Mr Basappa Suryavanshi
Aged about 66 years
R/at Durga Oni
Unkal, Hubballi
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate) Respondent
2. Appeal No.1305/2019
Mr Shiddappa
S/o Mr Basappa Bendigeri,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at Plot No.5,
Shri Bagar, KWD Circle,
Dharwad-580003 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
3. Appeal No.1306/2019
Mr Mahadevappa
S/o Mr Shivappa Angadi,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at H.No.262,
Shivananda Nagar,
Gamanagatti Road,
Hubballi-580025 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
4. Appeal No.1307/2019
Mr Shivanagouda
S/o Mr Channabasanagouda Patil,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at Bhairidevarakoppa,
Renuka Nagar,
Hubballi-580025 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
5. Appeal No.1308/2019
Mr Basappa
S/o Mr Sankappa Gowder,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Renukanagar,
Bairidevarakoppa,
Hubballi-580025 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
6. Appeal No.1309/2019
Mr Uday
S/o Mr Govinda Rao Kembhavi,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at H.No.57,
Manjunatha Nagar,
Gokul Road, 4th Cross
Bairidevarakoppa,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
7. Appeal No.1310/2019
Mr Basayya
S/o Mr Virupaxayya Kotagunshimath,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at LIG-188,
C/o Dalbanjan Building,
Gokul Road, Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
8. Appeal No.1311/2019
Mr Bheemarayappa .
S/o Mr Kalappa Badiger,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at Behind RWH,
Kotilinga Nagar, Gokul Road,
Heggeri-580024 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
9. Appeal No.1312/2019
Mr M.Puttappa .
S/o Mr Mahadevappa,
Aged about 74 years,
R/at No.46, Ramakrishnanagar,
Gokul Road,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
10. Appeal No.1313/2019
Mr Manohar .
S/o Mr Dattatreya Joshi,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at Jai Malhar,
MIG-01/137,
Gandhinagar, Gokul Road,
Hubballi - 580 030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
11. Appeal No.1314/2019
Mr Gurunath
S/o Mr Narayan Rao,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at H.No.101/130-I,
Siddhalingeshwara Colony,
Near Vikas Nagar, Gokul Road,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
12. Appeal No.1315/2019
Mr Somashekar .
S/o Mr Mallappa Pattanashetty,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at D.No.30, Lakshmi Park,
Sanman Colony,
Behind New Bus Stand,
Gokul Road, Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
13. Appeal No.1316/2019
Mr Channappa .
S/o Mr Basavanneppa Hugar
Aged about 77 years,
R/at Dyamavvana Gudi Oni,
Kamalapur, Dharwad-580001 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
14. Appeal No.1317/2019
Mr Fakirappa .
S/o Mr Mallappa Karkali,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Banashankari,
Temple Oni, Gokul,
Nanda Gokul, Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
15. Appeal No.1318/2019
Mr Kashappa
S/o Mr Parappa Mandali,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at Mudagal Complex,
2nd Cross, Near No.15 School,
Siddalinga Nagar, Gadag Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
16. Appeal No.1319/2019
Mr Shankar
S/o Mr Shivaram Ekbote,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Channapeth, Dalimberpeth,
Old Hubballi-580024 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
17. Appeal No.1320/2019
Mr Ninganna
S/o Mr Ramanna Varageri,
Aged about 74 years,
R/at Plot No.62,
Gayatri Colony, Venkatesh Colony,
Gopanakoppa,
Hubballi-580025 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
18. Appeal No.1321/2019
Mr. Gangaram Singh .
S/o Mr Rajaram Singh Alur,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at Chabbi Plot,
Channabasaveshwar Nagar,
Nekar Nagar, Old Hubballi-580024 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
19. Appeal No.1322/2019
Mr Hanumanthappa .
S/o Mr Parappa Kerakanavar,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at Near Banni Mahakali Temple,
Devangpeth,
Hubballi-580023 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
20. Appeal No.1323/2019
Mr Sahadevappa .
S/o Mr Hanumanthappa Kashinavar,
Aged about 72 years,
R/at Guddad Oni, Devangpeth,
Gopankoppa,
Hubballi-580023 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
21. Appeal No.1324/2019
Mr Chandrashekhar .
S/o Mr Rangappa Waddi,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at Anchatageri Oni,
Near Metro Garage,
Hubballi-580028 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
22. Appeal No.1325/2019
Mr Surendra
S/o Mr Shripadappa Lakkundi,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at Akkasaligar Oni,
Old Hubballi,
Hubballi-580024 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
23. Appeal No.1327/2019
Mr Prakash
S/o Mr Atmaram Thakur,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at H.No.83,
Behind Murudeshwar Tiles Factory,
Prashant Nagar,
Old-Hubballi,
Hubballi-580024 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
24. Appeal No.1328/2019
Mr Basappa
S/o Mr Sangappa Unkal,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at H.No.127/4,
Sandi Oni, Gokul,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
25. Appeal No.1329/2019
Mr Dinkar
S/o Mr Dattaji Rao Shindhe,
Aged about 59 years,
R/at Plot No.80/A,
Hondada, Veerabhadheshwar Nagar,
Behind J.S.S. College,
Daneshwarinagar,
Viyagiri, Dharwad-580004 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
26. Appeal No.1330/2019
Mr Yankappa
S/o Mr Doddappa Pasaledar,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at Ingala Halli oni,
Sattur, Dharwad Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
27. Appeal No.1331/2019
Mr Ramesh
S/o Mr Hanumantha Rao Kittur,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at Amte Chawl,
Near K.E.B., Mantur Road
Tabib Land, Hubballi-580020 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
28. Appeal No.1332/2019
Mr Raghavendra
S/o Mr Bhimrao Ramdurg,
Aged about 66 years,
R/at H.No.100, 1st Cross,
J.P.Nagar, Gokul Road,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
29. Appeal No.1333/2019
Mr Veerappa
S/o Mr Mallappa Bijakal,
Aged about 69 years,
R/at A-65, ART Nagar,
Gokul Road, R.N.Shetty Road,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
30. Appeal No.1334/2019
Mr Vasant
S/o Mr Jeevappa Avarsang,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at Plot No.71,
Siddesghwarnagar,
Unkal Cross,
Hubballi-580031 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
31. Appeal No.1335/2019
Mr Shivaji Rao
S/o Mr Hanumantha Rao Mane,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Mane Chawl,
Nandeshwar Nagar,
Bhiridevarkoppa,
Hubballi-580025 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
32. Appeal No.1336/2019
Mr Basappa
S/o Mr Mahadevappa Kumbar,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at Near Kariyamma Temple,
Veerapur Hakkal, Hubballi Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
33. Appeal No.1337/2019
Mr Rangappa .
S/o Mr Yamanappa Raichur,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at 09th Cross,
Ishwar Nagar, Giriyal Road,
Old Hubballi,
Hubballi-580024 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
34. Appeal No.1338/2019
Smt.Kamala .
Alias Kamalakshi,
W/o Late Sheshagiri Katti,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at LIG-28, Gandhinagar,
Gokul Road,
Hubballi-580030 Respondent
(By Mrs G.Geeta Bai, Advocate)
: COMMON ORDER :
Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT
01. These Appeals are filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 31.07.2018, 26.09.2018, 31.10.2018, 29.01.2019, 28.02.2019, 24.06.2019 and 27.06.2019 passed in Complaint Nos.13/2018, 15/2018 to 19/2018, 77 and 78/2018, 91/2018, 92 to 95/2018, 105 to 107/2018, 108/2018, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 & 190/2018, 200 to 205/2018 and 211 to 215/2018 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad (for short, the District Forum). Since the facts and law involved in all these cases are one and the same, they have been taken up together for consideration.
02. Perused the Impugned Order, grounds of Appeal and heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent. Since none appeared on behalf of the Appellant hence, the arguments of Appellant is taken as heard.
03. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter, deem it fit to allow the Complaints in part and directed the OP to revise the monthly pension of all the Complainants taking into consideration of the date of their retirement, as per Para 12 (3) (a) & (b) R/W Para 10 (2) in all the cases, in which weightage of 2 years shall be given as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 and pay the arrears with interest at the rate of 10% p.a as and when the arrears has become due and payable at the revised rate, according to the rules. In case of early pension as per Para 12(7) deduction should be made by rounding off the age to nearest year, to pay cost and compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the each of the complainant.
04. Being aggrieved by this order, OP contended that District Forum erred in holding that since the Complainants retired prior to 15.06.2007, their past service are to be fixed as per Para 12 (3) (a) and (b) R/w Para 10 (2) of EPS 1995 along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. Further she contended that, the District Forum erred in not considering the statement made in his version, which was supported by a table showing the manner in which monthly pension was fixed in respect of the Respondents/Complainants in accordance with the EPS Scheme 1995. Further she contended that the District Forum erred in not considering Para 35 & 41 of the EPS Scheme 1995, wherein the complainants has an alternative remedy of approaching the Central Government, since the present complaint is in respect of interpretation of a provision of the scheme and hence, the Central Government only would be the competent Authority to decide the dispute. Hence, seeks to set aside the impugned order by allowing the Appeals.
05. The learned counsel for the Respondents/Complainants in all these cases submitted that all the Respondents are eligible for wieghtage of two years, though they opted for Reduced Pension, as there is a provision under Para 12 (7) to reduce a pension @ 3% every year to the extent of the age that falls short of 58 years. Further, she submitted that the complainants in each of the case are eligible for past service benefit, as per the un-amended Para 12(3), 12(4) and 12(5) (a & b) and while calculating the age, Appellant has to round off the years of service to next higher year, if it is more than 6 months.
The learned counsel for Respondent, in support of her submission, referred the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270 and submitted that in the said decision, it was clearly stated that, as on the date of retirement of the pensioner, the prevailing pension rules will be applicable and that may be taken into consideration in all these cases.
06. On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the Complainants have joined the Employee Provident Fund Scheme, they contributed to the Employees Family Pension Scheme of 1971 and subsequently, they continued to contribute to the Employees Pension Scheme of 1995. After they retired from their services, they came to know that there are errors in calculation of their entitled pension and gave representations to the OP to rectify the same, but, OP did not rectify the mistakes committed in sanction of pension and hence, they filed their respective complaints before the District Forum, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP. On the contrary, OP denied that there is no error in fixation and payment of pension to the respective Complainants, as such there is no deficiency in service on his part.
07. Let us examine the details of service particulars of each of the Complainant, as per Memo filed by the learned counsel for Respondents in all these cases which is as under:
Appeal No. | Complaint No. |
Date of Birth |
Date of entry into service | Date of retirement | Past service | Actual service |
Age as on retirement |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1304/2019 |
13/2018 | 01.06.1952 |
1978 | 01.04.2004 and opted for pension from 28.12.2004 | 17 | 08 | 53 |
1305/2019 | 15/2018 | 01.04.1957 |
1987 | 30.09.2008and opted for pension from 04.11.2009 | 08 | 13 | 53 |
1306/2019 | 16/2018 | 01.05.1955 |
1976 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 01.05.2005 | 19 | 08 | 50 |
1307/2019 | 17/2018 | 10.03.1953 |
1980 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 08.11.2004 | 15 | 08 | 52 |
1308/2019 | 18/2018 | 31.05.1954 |
1982 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 08.12.2004 | 13 | 08 | 51 |
1309/2019 | 19/2018 | 01.03.1953 |
1974 | 15.12.1999 opted for pension from 01.03.2003 | 21 | 04 | 50 |
1310/2019 | 77/2018 | 01.01.1946 |
1978 | 27.12.1999opted for pension from 11.04.2000 | 17 | 04 | 54 |
1311/2019 | 78/2018 | 01.06.1948 |
1973
|
31.05.2006
| 22 | 11 | 58 |
1312/2019 | 91/2018, | 09.10.1943 |
1971 | 20.12.1999 opted for pension from 11.04.2000 | 24 | 04 | 56 |
1313/2019 | 92/2018 | 18.07.1949 |
1971 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 08.11.2004 | 24 | 08 | 55 |
1314/2019 | 93/2018 | 01.06.1948 |
1971 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 16.11.2004 | 24 | 05 | 56 |
1315/2019 | 94/2018 | 01.06.1949 |
1971 | 25.02.2000 opted for pension from 22.03.2005 | 24 | 04 | 56 |
1316/2019 | 95/2018 | 01.02.1942 |
1976 |
31.01.2000
| 19 | 04 | 58 |
1317/2019 | 105 /2018 | 01.05.1954 |
1974 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 21.12.2004 | 21 | 08 | 51 |
1318/2019 | 106/2018 | 01.11.1955 |
1982 | 19.10.2007 and opted for pension from 03.08.2010 | 13 | 12 | 55 |
1319/2019 | 107/2018 | 21.02.1954 |
1974 |
01.04.2004 opted for pension from 20.12.2004
| 21 | 08 | 51 |
1320/2019 | 108/2018 | 01.06.1944 |
1971 | 27.12.1999 opted for pension from 27.07.2000
| 24 | 04 | 56 |
1321/2019 | 156/2018 | 01.05.1947 |
1973 |
30.04.2005
| 22 | 09 | 58 |
1322/2019 | 157/2018 | 01.04.1951 |
1977 | 05.11.1998 opted for pension from 01.04.2001
| 18 | 03 | 50 |
1323/2019 | 158/2018 | 01.01.1946 |
1975 |
05.11.1998
| 20 | 03 | 52 |
1324/2019 | 159/2018 | 01.09.1949 |
1974 | 20.12.1999 opted for pension from 11.04.2000
| 21 | 04 | 50 |
1325/2019 | 160/2018 | 01.03.1945 | 1971 | 28.02.2003 | 24 | 07 | 58 |
1327/2019 | 190/2018 | 01.06.1954 |
1974 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 01.12.2004
| 21 | 08 | 51 |
1328/2019 | 200/2018 | 01.05.1953 |
1975 | 27.12.1999 opted for pension from 27.04.2005
| 20 | 04 | 52 |
1329/2019 | 201/2018 | 24.10.1959 |
1981 | 01.04.2001opted for pension from 24.10.2009
| 14 | 05 | 51 |
1330/2019 | 202/2018 | 01.12.1950 |
1971 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 28.02.2005
| 24 | 08 | 55 |
1331/2019 | 203/2018 | 24.02.1946 |
1974 | 20.12.1999 opted for pension from 06.04.2000
| 21 | 04 | 54 |
1332/2019 | 204/2018 | 19.07.1953 |
1974 | 20.12.1999 opted for pension from 19.07.2003
| 21 | 04 | 50 |
1333/2109 | 205/2018 | 01.06.1950 |
1971 | 20.12.1999 opted for pension from 01.06.2000
| 24 | 04 | 50 |
1334/2019 | 211/2018 | 05.08.1948 |
1971 | 20.12.1999 opted for pension from 26.04.2000
| 24 | 04 | 51 |
1335/2019 | 212/2018 | 05.05.1955 |
1974 | 01.04.2004 opted for pension from 09.05.2005
| 21 | 08 | 51 |
1336/2019 | 213/2018 | 01.12.1952 |
1973 | 05.11.1998 opted for pension from 01.01.2003 | 22 | 03 | 50 |
1337/2019 | 214/2018 | 01.04.1949 |
1974 |
31.03.2007
| 21 | 11 | 58 |
1338/2019 | 215/2018 | 16.01.1953 |
1974 | 27.12.1999 opted for pension from 16.01.2003 | 21 | 04 | 50 |
Thus, it is observed from the contents of the above table, the complainants in Appeal Nos.1311/2019, 1316/2019, 1321/2019, 1325/2019 and 1337/2019 retired on attaining the age of 58 years by rendering pensionable service of more than 20 years and they have complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995, hence, they are eligible for weightage of two years.
While Complainants in Appeal Nos.1304/2019, 1305/2019 to 1310/2019, 1312/2019 to 1315/2019, 1317/2019 to 1324/2019, 1327/2019, 1328/2019, 1330/2019 to 1336/2019 & 1338/2019 have retired before superannuation by rendering pensionable service of more than 20 years and complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009 and hence, they are also eligible for weightage of two years.
Whereas, the Complainant in Appeal No.1329/2019 retired before superannuation and not rendered pensionable service of 20 years and not complied with the condition as per Para 10(2) of EPS 1995 as it stood before 24.07.2009 hence, he is not eligible for weightage of two years.
08. With regard to the eligibility of Monthly Pension for all these Complainants, it is seen that except the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1305/2019 and 1318/2019, all other Complainants have retired earlier to 15.06.2007 and hence, their Monthly Pension will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood before 15.06.2007. Similarly, Complainants in Appeal Nos.1305/2019 and 1318/2019 have retired after 15.06.2007 hence, their Monthly Pension also will have to be re-calculated as per Para 12 of EPS 1995, as it stood after 15.06.2007.
09. Thus taking into consideration of the fact that in view of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India decided on 28.09.1984 in the case of Salabuddin Mohamed Yunus Vs State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1984 Law Suit (SC) 270, wherein, it was held that “Retrospective amendment of the Rule curtailing amount of pension so payable : Pension: Hyderabad General Clauses Act 1308 F Section 2(22) : States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1945) Section 115 (7) proviso: Labour and services: Constitution of India Articles 19(1) (f) and 31(1) (as stood prior to their omission on June 20, 1979) should be payable under the Rules as in force at the time of retirement: Although, previous sanction of Central Government under Section 115 of States Reorganisation Act for retrospective amendment of Rule 299(1) (b) of Hyderabad Civil Service Rules not required where the person affected retiring prior to the appointed day stipulated under the Act”.
And also the decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Raichur Vs Vasanth Madhav Kerur and others in Revision Petition No.765/2013 wherein, it was held that “the aggregated past service and actual service (period of service form 16.11.1995 onwards) has to be considered for the purpose of calculation of weightage of two years”.
10. Thus, with the above observation, this Commission is of the considered view that all the above Complainants are entitled for their revised monthly pension, the facts remain that the Complainants in Appeal Nos.1304/2019, 1305/2019 to 1310/2019, 1312/2019 to 1315/2019, 1317/2019 to 1324/2019, 1327/2019, 1328/2019, 1330/2019 to 1336/2019 & 1338/2019 have not been superannuated, the Appellant is honour bound to follow his own Rules & Regulations and should have subjected these Members to their entitlement for Reduced monthly Pension at reduction rate of 3% for every year of short fall in their service, as the age of the Members qualifying for benefits under the PF scheme, falls short of 58 years, as per Para 12.7 of EPS 1995. In such view of the matter, the act of OP in not revising pension of the pensioners amounts to deficiency in service.
11. Under the above circumstances, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is just and proper. However, we are of the considered opinion that awarding of interest @ 10% p.a is slightly on the higher side and reducing the same to 8.25% p.a would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, Appeals are allowed in part and consequently, the Impugned Order dated 31.07.2018, 26.09.2018, 31.10.2018, 29.01.2019, 28.02.2019, 24.06.2019 and 27.06.2019 passed in Complaint Nos.13/2018, 15/2018 to 19/2018, 77 and 78/2018, 91/2018, 92 to 95/2018, 105 to 107/2018, 108/2018, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 & 190/2018, 200 to 205/2018 and 211 to 215/2018 respectively on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad is hereby modified only to the extent of interest awarded by the District Forum is concerned. The cost and compensation of Rs.3,000/- to each of the complainant awarded by the District Forum is also remains undisturbed and the Appellant is directed to comply with this Order within 60 days from the date of the order.
12. The statutory deposit in all these Appeals is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.
13. Keep the Original of this Order in Appeal No.1304/2019 and copy thereof, in rest of the Appeals.
14. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.
President
*s
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.